• Home
• About
• Writers
• Landscape
• Wizards Index
• Fraud
• Wanna Be Like Larry?

Search Saber Rattling

The Washington Post, January 31, 2008, ran a story “Google Slams Autonomy over Enterprise Search Claims.” The subtitle was, “Google Says Autonomy’s White Paper Contains ‘Significant Inaccuracies’ about its Search Appliance.”

The gist of the story, as I understand it, is that Autonomy wrote a white paper. The white paper contains assertions that the Google Search Appliance is not as good as Autonomy’s search engine. The Autonomy white paper is here. Google’s response is here.

What’s a White Paper?

For those of you not familiar with the lingo of high-tech marketing, a white paper is an essay, usually three or four pages to 50 pages or more. The author, usually an “expert”, opines on a particular topic, including facts, assertions, data from “objective tests”, and other sources. The idea is that a white paper presents information that supports an argument. If you want to immerse yourself in white papers, navigate to Bitpipe, and sign up. The young founders created a treasure trove of these documents after a stint at the Thomson Corporation. White papers, based on my experience, are among the favorite reads of graduate students in far-off places. Bitpipe reports heavy usage of their repository. My test a couple of years ago revealed zero substantive leads from a white paper about behind-the-firewall search. My hunch is that these documents occupy 20-something public relations experts, their superiors, and, of course, the hundreds of graduate students looking for information. Maybe some legitimate buyers order up several million dollars worth of computer gear after reading a white paper, but I think the white papers’ impact might be more limited; for example, competitors seem to read one another’s white papers. I scan them, but mostly I focus on the specifications (if any are included) and the technical diagrams (also rare as hen’s teeth).

I keep a collection of white papers published by the 52 search and content processing companies I track. I don’t want to dig into the Autonomy white papers or the mind-numbing complexities of the Google essays here.

The majority of white papers are like sonnets in the 16th century. There’s a convention, and vendors follow the convention. The individual white papers are formulaic. Most white papers arguing that the sponsor’s or author’s product is not just good but really very good.

About half the white papers take implicit or explicit swipes at competitors’ products. I’m not sure these swipes are harmless, but a white paper is not going to have the impact of a story by Walt Mossberg in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. Furthermore, the writing of a white paper is not going to get anyone a Ph.D. or even a high grade in a first-year writing class.

The objective of a white paper is to make a sale or help a fence-sitting prospect to make the “right” decision. The sponsor or author of the white paper wants to paint a clear picture of one product. The competitors’ products are so-so. White papers are usually free, but to download one, you may have to register. You become a sales lead.

Why the Fuss?

I understand the frustration of search vendors who find their product or service criticized. Search systems are terribly complex, generally not well understood by their licensees, and almost always deemed “disappointing” by their users. Marketers can suggest and imply remarkable features of their employers’ search systems. Hyperbole sells in some situations.

I’ve made reference to a major study we conducted in 2007. The data suggested that two-thirds of a behind-the-firewall search system’s users were dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with their search engine. It didn’t seem to make much difference whose system the respondent had in mind. The negative brush painted a broad swath across the best and brightest vendors in the search market place. In December, I learned from a colleague in Paris, France, that she found similar results in her studies of search system satisfaction.

To lay my cards on the table, I don’t like any search system all that much. You can read more about search and content processing warts in my new study, Beyond Search, available in April 2008. Task-master Frank Gilbane has me on schedule. I assume that’s one reason his firm has a good reputation. In Beyond Search, I discuss what makes people unhappy when they use commercial search systems, and I also offer some new information about fixing a broken system.

Dust Up: Not the World Wrestling Federation

The recent dust up reported by the Washington Post and dozens is that Autonomy and Google are shaking their PR swords at one another. I find that amusing because no one outside of a handful of specialists have the foggiest idea what makes each respective company’s system work. I recall a fierce argument about Spencer’s Faerie Queen. I don’t anyone knew what the distinguished combatants were talking about.

Autonomy

IDOL stands for Integrated Data Operating Layer. The Autonomy approach is to put a “framework” for information applications in an organization. The licensee uses the IDOL framework to acquire, process, and make available information. You can run a search, and you can process video, identify data anomalies, and output visual reports. The system, when properly configured and resourced, is amazing. Autonomy has thousands of customers, and based on the open source intelligence available to me, most are happy. You can read more about the Autonomy IDOL system at www.autonomy.com. There’s a long discussion of the IDOL framework in all four editions of the Enterprise Search Report, which I authored from 2003 to 2006 and some of my thoughts linger in the 4th edition.

Google Search Appliance

The GSA is a server or servers with a Google search system pre-installed. This is a “search toaster,” purpose built for quick deployment. You can also use a GSA for a Web site search, but the Google Custom Search Engine can do that job for free. The GSA comes with an API called the “One Box API”. In my research for the first three editions of the Enterprise Search Report, I kept readers up to date on the evolution of the Google Search Appliance. My assessment in the first edition of ESR was that GSA was outstanding for Web site search and acceptable for certain types of behind-the-firewall requirements. Then in editions two and three of ESR, I reported on the improvements Google was making to the GSA. The Google wasn’t churning out new versions every few months, but it was making both incremental and significant improvements. Import filters improved. The GSA became more adept with behind-the-firewall security. With each upgrade to the GSA, it was evident that Google was making improvements.

When the One box API came along maybe a year or two ago, the GSA morphed from an okay solution into a search stallion for the savvy licensee. Today’s GSA and One box API duo are hampered by a Googley, non-directive sales plan. Google, in a sense, is not in a hurry. Competitors are.

Differences between Autonomy IDOL and GSA

Autonomy has a solid track record of knowing what the “next big thing in search” will be. The company’s top management seem to be psychic. There was “portal in a box”. Very successful. Great timing. There was Kenjin (remember that?), a desktop search application. Industry-leading and ahead of its time. And there was IDOL itself. Autonomy invented the notion of an information operating platform. Other vendors like Fast Search & Transfer jumped on the Autonomy idea with enthusiasm. Now most search vendors offer a “platform” or a “framework”.

Let’s look at some differences in the two competitors’ systems:

Autonomy IDOL is a “classic” approach to enterprise systems. A licensee can mix and match features, customize almost every facet of the system, and build new applications on IDOL. IDOL runs on a range of operating systems. IDOL includes snazzy visualization and report services. The licensee has one responsibility — ensuring that the resources required by the system are appropriate. With appropriate resources, Autonomy is a very good content processing and search system.

Google’s approach is quite different. The GSA is a plug-and-play solution. A licensee can do some customization via style sheets and the GSA’s administrative utility. But for really interesting implementations, the licensee or one of the three dozen partners have to roll up their sleeves and write code. Google wants its customers “to get it.”

Neither IDOL nor GSA is objectively better than the other; both can do an outstanding job of search. Both can deliver disappointing results. Remember, none of the hundreds of search and content processing systems is able to please most of the users most of the time.

Full Circle

This brings me back to the white paper dust up. I don’t think that dueling news releases will do much to change who buys what. What I think is going on is pretty obvious. Let me make my view clear:

Google’s GSA is gaining traction in the behind-the-firewall search segment. I heard that the enterprise unit has tallied more than 8,500 GSA sales as of December 31, 2008. Information about the One Box API is beginning to diffuse among the technical crowd. Google’s own PR and marketing is — how can I phrase it? — non-directive. Google’s is not in-your-face when it comes to sales. Customers have to chase Google. But this white paper affair suggests that Google may have to change. Autonomy knows how to toss white paper grenades at the Google. The Google has some grenades to toss at Autonomy. For example, you can dip into this Google white paper, Algorithm für dynamische geometrische Datenströme, Gereon Frahling, Ausgezeichnete Informatikdissertationen 2006.

What the Saber Rattling Does Reveal

Google, despite being Googley, is no longer the elephant in the search engine play house no one sees or talks about. I also learned that:

1. The battle for search mind share is no longer between and among the traditional on-premises players like Endeca, Exalead, and ISYS Search Software. Autonomy has certified Google as the competitor for 2008.
2. Google, judging by its response, is beginning to realize it needs some additional marketing chutzpah.
3. The media will continue toss logs on the fire in the best tradition of “If it bleeds, it leads” journalism
4. Prospects now have reason to equate Autonomy and Google.

Let me be 100 percent clear. No search system is perfect. None of the marketing is particularly useful to potential licensees who remain confused about what system does what. Some vendors still refuse to make a price list available. (Now that’s a great idea when selling to the U.S. government.) And, none of the currently shipping systems will deliver customer satisfaction scores Rolls-Royce enjoys.

Search is difficult. Its value proposition fuzzier and harder to demonstrate. The resources available to a licensee make more difference than the specific system deployed. A so-so search system can deliver great results when the users’ requirements are met, the system doesn’t time out, and the needed content has been indexed. Any commercial search engine will flat out fail when the licensee doesn’t have the expertise, money, or patience to resource the search system.

Want to know which vendor has the “best” system? Get 300 identical servers, load up the same content on each, and let your users run queries. Ask the users which system is “best”. Know what? No one does this. Search is, therefore, a he-said, she-said business. The fix. Do head-to-head bake offs. Decide for yourself. Don’t let vendors do your thinking for you.

Stephen Arnold, February 1, 2008

Comments

Copyright © 2008 Beyond Search · ArnoldIT.com · Disclaimer · Revolution News theme by Brian Gardner · Log in